This blog exists to support liberatory collectivist activism that is anti-patriarchy, anti-colonialism, and anti-capitalism. It also seeks to center the experiences, theories, and agendas of radical and feminist women of color.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

***TRIGGER WARNING FOR GRAPHIC IMAGES OF WHITE HET MALE VIOLENCE AGAINST HUMANITY*** (Oh, and there's also a feminist's book cover, so be prepared for that too.)

"Femi-Nazi" is a term for the deranged fringe of the feminist movement (Andrea Dworkin, for example), which I have heard used in talk radio by everyone from Russ Limbaugh to Bill Maher. It is certainly a common expression among men of all persuasions. I suspect the label is popular among quite a few women who are not man-haters and still have a sense of humor, even as they insist on governing the world. No one is (or should be) in charge of policing the American language. [source: here]

It is a marvel of "logical, rational" white het male reasoning. This use of the term "Feminazi" and the belief that feminist women in patriarchal societies somehow carry the power to oppress men of their own socio-economic bracket. These STOOPID het whiteboys, such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher, routinely use this term to describe--gasp--women who believe sexism is a bad thing and might just try and remedy the situation through human rights activism. Scaaaaarrrryyyyyyyyyyyy. Scary like Nazis, right? Uh, wrong.

This is what feminists produce--witness the terrifying nature of it...

Now, witness what fascists--white het male fascists who want institutionalised white and male power to rule--produce:

[image of systematic and socially supported white het male generated atrocity, not supported by radical feminists, is from here]

and

[image of systemic and socially supported white het male led atrocity, not supported by radical feminists, is from here]

I'm not sure what sort of mind contorts human rights activism into a form of fascism. Clearly not a rational or logical one. And yet, antifeminist white het men proclaim themselves the Master Race when it comes to being logical. Oh, and white het men do comprise the population best known for committing atrocities like rape and genocide, and for supporting fascist regimes. Funny that they project their own evil-doings onto feminist women, eh?

For white het men, "assault" is disagreement with an institutionalised ideology that privileges males over and against females. To disagree is to commit an assault, you see? And to maintain this critique for years is to become "a fascist". I hope it is readily evident what level of privilege one has to have to think in this contorted, distorted, and unfortunately not aborted way. I'm speaking now of the abortion of illogical ideas, these men's illogical ideas, that would be better off left undeveloped, let alone birthed into the world. Oh, wait. They are birthed into the world, and are undeveloped. Never mind. And leave it to the stoopids to call this paragraph of mine a form of misandrist fascism. Oh what fools these white het male mortals be. May the Goddess breathe rationality into their pea brains sometime soon.

Witness this stoopidity from a dork named Snark, from his ramblings at a blog called something that is pro-rapism: "Remasculation":

Those who tarnish the notions of objective truth and objective logic are those who tend to fare badly when subject to its enquiries.

Quite coincidental, I am sure.

If you have time, it's worth reading this article: Feminists are Intellectual Rapists. [see below]

Other links elsewhere on the web, which escape me for the moment, describe how students of "Women's Studies" have disputed simple logical and mathematical propositions; e.g. arguing that '4' is only a subjective answer to the problem of '2 + 2', and that in another context, the answer could be 6. [Wow. Really? And the sources escape you? Are you sure it's not your rational mind that escapes you?]

How can one possibly hope to hold a conversation with such people? Not that you'd want to. [As opposed to the likes of this stoopid-ass.]

But how can they expect anyone to listen to or take seriously their arguments - especially those statistics which show that a certain percentage of women are victimised in some or other way. [Yes. Women are raped in numbers--that's actual numbers that add up to a sum total--that are an actual percentage of the female population. Like one in three--that's one third, for white het men who don't do math--of all Indigenous U.S. Americans will be raped in their lifetime, and approximately 80% of the rapists will be white het men. The spoken truth apparently repels and hurts men; the reality from which truth statements derive hurts and kills women.]

Perhaps in 'another context', then, that percentage is much lower?[In another context, such as the delusional land of this asshole's mind?]

It’s always useful to step back from the argument itself, and to look at the meta-logic through which the argument is being conducted. [Ohhh. Did you see that? He used a term "meta-logic"!!! Wow. He must be sma... naaah.]

I had promised to myself that I would never blog about one Denise Romano, MA, EdM, but since then she has come to symbolise something much greater than herself. See here and here. [Antifeminist white het men GAZZ over the opportunity to use a single example, anecdotal though it may be, as proof of their fucked up illogical conclusions about how society works, for them, while claiming it is run and ruled by radical feminists.]

Think of her like the Guy that we burn every November 5th, in commemoration of Guy Fawkes, who tried to blow up Parliament in 1605. [Hmmm. Comparing a WOMAN to a MAN?! Isn't that against the rules of antifeminist doods--aren't WOMEN the worst kind of human there is?! lol]

Firstly, the letters after her name are not mere narcissism. [No, the word "Snark" is a synonym for a form narcissism also characterised by hostility towards feminists, however.] They serve the purpose of an instant appeal to authority. [Unlike Snark's race, sexual orientation, and gender, which carry no status and authority? Right.] You shall know, whenever reading a Denise Romano post, that this argument has been personally authored by an academic. [An academic? You mean one of those people who was, until a few decades ago, only allowed to be white and male???] She knows more than you, so you should simply acquiesce to her enlightened way of thinking. [Ah, yes. White het men acquiescing. And when will they acquiesce their political, legal, police, military, medical, and religious, economic, and academic power?]

Except none of this is true. I happen to know, for instance, that one of the more well-known UK MRAs holds a PhD in Psychology.

(That's a higher qualification than your mere Master's degree, Denise.) [Oooh. Wow. Really? Wait, so a "PhD means you're SMARTER that someone with a MASTERS?? Hmmm. And they call it that, don't they: a Bachelors Degree, a Masters Degree... no linguistic indication of which gender is considered to be the definition of "intelligent" there, is there?]

Indeed, your good friend Tom Snark himself could, if he so chose, quite sincerely attach a bunch of letters after his name. [Don't tell me. Let me guess: Tom Snark, P.R.I.C.K. Is that right?]

But I don't, and other MRAs don't, because we prefer to let our arguments speak for themselves. And also, we're not that socially awkward.

[Ah, but you don't just argue, do you. You also do CRAP like this--and this is the work of only one such group of het whiteboys working diligently to preserve white and male supremacist power over and against all women, and men of color:]

Accomplishments

Fathers & Families has the best record of legislative success, the largest membership base, the highest media profile, the most funding, and the most successful legislative representatives of any family court reform organization. Fathers & Families’ accomplishments include:

Helped lead successful campaigns in 2004 and 2006 to defeat California “move-away” bills which would have made it too easy for custodial parents to move children to other states without regard for children’s best interests.

Reduced excessive child support by over $1 billion from 2001 through 2008 in Massachusetts. Won seat on the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines Task Force in 2007-2008.

Helped pass California SB 1082 to protect military parents’ rights in family court.

Worked with legislators and staffers in other states on military parent legislation, leading the following states to pass bills modeled in part on California—Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Ohio, Michigan, Oklahoma, Utah, Mississippi, Alaska, Missouri, and others.

Enlisted over one-quarter of the Massachusetts Legislature as co-sponsors of our shared parenting bill.

Gathered thousands of signatures to place shared parenting on the 2004 Massachusetts ballot; led successful campaign for its passage, winning 86% of the vote.

Worked on the 2009 National Defense Reauthorization Act (HR 2647) to include a mandate that the U.S. Secretary of Defense produce a report on child custody litigation involving members of the Armed Forces, as well as international intrafamilial abductions of servicemembers’ children.

Helped pass paternity fraud legislation (AB 252 and SB 1333) which allows California child support obligors to use DNA evidence to set aside false paternity judgments and the concomitant child support orders.

Pushed “shared parenting” to the number one issue on the Massachusetts Governor’s website for citizen input.

Persuaded the Boston Globe to become first major newspaper in country to endorse shared parenting in principle in editorial (Feb 23, 2008).

Wrote amicus brief which helped win precedent-setting Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case protecting children in joint physical custody from being moved out of state, away from one parent.

Instrumental in passing law opening up access to report cards and school records to non-custodial parents in Massachusetts.

Led 2008 campaign which stopped FOX from airing the anti-father reality TV show Bad Dads.

Led 2009 campaign which stopped Lifetime Television from airing the anti-father realty show Deadbeat Dads.

Helped create California’s COAP program, which allows parents who are unfairly saddled with inflated, unpayable child support arrearages to settle them for modest cash payments.

Worked with Texas Senator Jane Nelson to pass SB 279, a bill to protect military parents’ custody rights, which was signed by Texas Governor Rick Perry in 2009.

Helped spearhead successful national protest campaign against Florida’s refusal to reunite a fit and loving Cuban dad with his daughter.

Helped lead successful campaign to free Brian Gegner, a father jailed because his adult daughter didn’t get her GED.

Helped beat back repeated California legislative attempts to prevent target parents of Parental Alienation from raising PA as an issue in their family law cases.

Helped pass California SB 285 to protect disabled veterans. The bill prohibits courts from illegally garnishing disability compensation for child support. It also prohibits courts from calculating veterans’ disability compensation into divorce settlements as income or as a divisible asset.

Helped defeat an amendment to California AB 164 which would have prevented fit noncustodial parents from gaining access to school and other records.

Built the only organization of its kind to achieve financial stability through broad-based individual financial support.

Developed the largest website, blog and E-newsletter in the world devoted to family law reform. Our subscriber list of 50,000 readers is the largest in the world on our issues.

Established presence in major broadcast and print media, including the O’Reilly Factor, PBS, NPR’s The Connection, NPR’s Justice Talking, CNN Prime News, ABC’s World News Tonight, Geraldo at Large, CNN’s TalkBack Live, the CBS Early Show, Fox News’ Big Story with John Gibson, the Fox Morning Show with Mike and Juliet, CBS Sunday Morning, and others; major magazines, including Newsweek, Time, the New York Times Sunday Magazine, Forbes, U.S. News and World Report, People magazine, Best Life Magazine, and many others; and hundreds of newspapers, including the New York Times, USA Today, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Houston Chronicle, the San Francisco Chronicle, the New York Daily News, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Chicago Tribune, MSN.com, and others.

Moving onto Denise's actual views. She basically adheres to the Andrea Dworkin school of thought [does Snark mean the school whereby you think actual legitimate, valid thoughts, reasoned, well-argued, logical, backed by comprehensive research, well-written, cogent, clear, and yet irrationally threatening to white het men? That kind of thought?], and has been working vehemently to convince MRAs that the definition of 'rape' should be widened so that it covers adultery and the use of Game. [As opposed to the antifeminist definition of rape, which doesn't exist, because men never commit it. "Rape" is a feminist conspiracy, you see. I'll tell ya what IS a significant social problem though. No, not rape. Forget rape. Rape schmape. THE PROBLEM, SOCIALLY AND POLITICALLY is false allegations by women who rule men. Yup, that's antifeminist "logic", alright.]

What?!

Yes, she believes that Tiger Woods "raped" Elin by cheating on her, and should thus be punished as a rapist. She also claims that the use of Game is a form of psychological coercion, which can be equated to rape. [Why don't we live in those good ol' days, when all Black men had to do was look at a white woman to be accused of being a rapist... by U.S. white het men? And then those Black men who looked at white women were lynched for doing so. What happened to that time? Ah, memories. So now Snark wishes us to believe it is women who have the history of distorting reality, as to who rapes and who gets to decide what is "lynch-worthy". We can note that no white woman ever lyuched a Black man. White women watched it happen, yes. By white men who beat the shit out of them for looking too longingly at a Black man.]

So you can see why I say that she symbolises something larger than herself - she has come to symbolise the feminist drive to extend the definition of rape and imprison more and more men for engaging in consensual sex. [As opposed to, say, the masculinist drive to extend their phallocracy by minimising the reality of the rape of women by men; by grossly distorting the definition of consent to include what men do to passed-out drunk women; by pretending that most white het men are even truthfully accused of the rapes that men do commit; more irrationally, by pretending that those men find their sorry rapist asses in court; and more irrationally yet, believing that white het rapists are confined to something called "prison".]
She practices a degree of rhetorical discipline, however, and claims that she is all about "equality." [The way Snark and his snaky sharks do?] It is a funny equality which she preaches, [as opposed to the hilarious while irrational kind of "equality" promoted by antifeminist men] one which seems to blame men for all the world's ills [Hmmm. Does he mean the ills committed by men? Well of course men didn't do commit those ills. Those were committed by... who does Snark think did commit those ills? Like, say, spreading the "illness" of small pox as part of a genocidal practice in North America by white het men. Was it women who did that "ill"? He just doesn't want ALL ills to be blamed on men. Never mind the ills men do commit. (Shhhh. Let's ignore those. If we don't discuss them they might disappear, like they do in the illogical minds of antifeminist activist men)] , and which explicitly does not seek to apply the same standards to women - although she will pay lip service to such an idea. [Ah, because we all know that white het men are FAMOUS for applying equal standards to humanity. Let's see: Aryans? Human perfection. Jews? Not so much. Men? Synonymous with the term "human". Women? Not so much. (Women bleed out of their crotches, after all. I mean how "human" is that?!!) Whites? Human. People of color? Those allegedly lesser humans that white het men study to discern just how human they are. Non-indigenous white people? Civilised. Indigenous people? Savages.]

As I say, symbolic of the wider feminist movement. [Of which he knows little to nothing at all. Has he even read a feminist book, I wonder? Which ones? Can he name eleven? Can he finger-count to eleven without taking out his dick to get to that number after ten?]

And so, my fellow MRAs, and others who are sympathetic to the Men's Movement [also known as irrational jerks and those who love them], or whatever you want to call it and yourselves, listen up! Because this essay isn't really about Denise Romano, LOL, STD, whatsoever [wait? Was that humor? Getting backWow. How witty. NOT.]; it's about how feminists argue. [No, it's about how Snark argues and what he thinks is important. The rape atrocity? Not important. Genocide? Nope. Anti-lesbian and anti-gay violence? Naaah. How white het men are so, so unfairly persecuted and lied about?? Bingo.]

I have been watching these people very closely for a long time. [Creeeeeepyyyyy.]

And I have become convinced that feminists do not hold logical argument in the same regard as do the majority of men. [There's "logic" at work for ya!]

Rather, they argue on a whim [or is that Snark??], picking and choosing what they shall respond to [such as picking about a dozen or so quotes by women--some never said or written by the feminist women--that antifeminists publish over and over and over again ad nauseam? Like that?], picking and choosing different justifications [isn't that precisely what Snark is doing here?] for consecutive points [I'm not sure I could go so far as to say Snark is presenting consecutive points]: an appeal to authority one minute [the way Snark appeals to those with race, class, and gender privilege who support antifeminist activism?], an appeal to equality the next [it's called a mirror, Snark: look in it and see how you and your uber-white brethren do precisely this], an appeal AGAINST authority (labelled 'patriarchy') [patriarchy? Snark says it like it isn't real? Hmmm. Delusional. Yup. That's what he is.] the next, etc. [Snark is a privileged whiteboy going on and on about the abusive power of women one minute, and how they care about equality the next.]

If you were to attempt to apply a feminist's current justification to her previous argument, you would reach a quite different conclusion from the one that she reached. [Note: one feminist's thoughts, one article = all feminists' writings throughout time across culture. Logical? Nope.]
E.g., she may point you to the "legal and medical definition" of rape, to argue rather flakily that Game therefore constitutes rape. This is an appeal to authority. But the next minute, she may be raging against some legal definition, because it is "patriarchal," and demanding that it be changed. [Wow. She argues some definitions are patriarchal and pro-male supremacy and others are not? But how could that be? Some things are oppressive and others are not oppressive? What a lunatic she is to think LIKE THAT! Did I say "she"? I mean Snark.]

So you see, in the first instance, she took the legal definition to be as legitimate as a priori knowledge - as if that's objective fact, end of story. [Watch out, folks. He's bringing out the Latin phrases!! (That means he thinks that he's smart!)]

But then, she quite clearly spelled out her view that legal definitions are not necessarily okay, and perhaps should even be changed. Casts doubt on her resort to the sanctity of authority, doesn't it, when she challenges it the next minute? [Is it me, or is this guy boring?]

A feminist's conclusion is written in stone before she argues her way to it. This is important to realise: feminists argue backwards from a conclusion. This is what necessitates the inconsistency of justification. [This is important to reiterate: Snark believes what one feminists writes, in one article--that he doesn't even understand, is representative for what every feminist writes across culture and era.]

Such people respond only to those points which they can comfortably make counter-points against [unlike Snark?], and disregard the inconsistency of their own positions. [Unlike Snark?]

Then they typically make some slur or allegation - shaming tactics - against their opponents, placing their (more consistent and sincere) opponents on the defensive once again. [Which is never done by antifeminist jerks. Ever. Well, except daily. But other than daily, NEVER!]

When we step back from the argument itself, and look at the argument's meta-logic [there's that term again that makes Snark think he understands 'logic'], we shall find dishonesty. [As if misquoting feminists, publishing things they don't say is "honest".] The feminist [note: "the feminist": there is a template, and all of them think the same way. Isn't that called sexism?] is unable to stick to a straight argument [and we know how Snark LOVES them straight arguments]; one which goes back and forth, point by point. She cherry-picks her positions [as opposed to publishing inaccurate and highly selective quotes by white radical feminists], which are inconsistent with each other, but all consistent with her foregone conclusion: female supremacy. [Ah! His delusion is revealed! And if she WAS promoting a female supremacist argument? What does that mean in a rigidly male supremacist society? The term "spitting in the wind" comes to mind. How is one article a threat to very well established male supremacy, anyway? Answer: because Snark thinks his misread of her article is what ALL feminists say! (He's playing hockey with a warped puck.) And if she's not even promoting female supremacy? He can't read feminist writings without thinking they are ALL calling for female supremacy. When stoopid men--not all men, not even all pro-male supremacist men, but men like Snark--see a woman challenging patriarchy, or male supremacist laws, the only thing they can imagine is that those women must be wanting matriarchy, and female supremacy, because political equality just doesn't occur to them. Their minds are so warped that if it's not men ruling women, it's women ruling men. Silly fools.]

In sum: there is no use arguing with feminists, who are not capable or not willing to engage in rational argument at an adult level. [In sum--adding one of his ideas with others... Snark demonstrates significant and unyielding ignorance about feminism thought. Perhaps he ought to read Patricia Hill Collins' book Black Feminist Thought or Marimba Ani's book Yurugu--the section on white het men's "logic". But since Collins and Ani are not among the white radical feminists he and others of his ilk misquote, I'd be surprised if he's even heard of either woman.]

And I would add, that most of the time, it is a case of not being willing rather than not being capable. [Is he referring to misogynist men reading feminist writings? I question whether they are capable. I know they aren't willing.]

"Sin against the infrastructure itself!" said the late radical feminist Mary Daly. [As if he's EVER read a Mary Daly book! Haha.]

The patriarchal "infrastructure" consists of all those throwbacks such as a regard for truth, justice, logic, etc. It is these things that radical feminists exhorted their underlings to "sin against." [Stoopid, self-serving white het male definitions of those things? You bet! Sin away, people!]

What this means in practice is that feminists [all of them, even Collins and Ani, who he's never read and never heard of] feel entitled to be utterly inconsistent: to confound their opponents with illogical arguments, faulty premises, emotional appeals, etc. [Isn't that what battering husbands do? Beat the shit out of a spouse and then beg her to forgive him, telling her that he really loves her so very much?] Because their opponents shall be handicapped by their need to follow a rational argument, feminists can dance circles around them, by intentionally discarding the use of logic. [It might help his argument if he critiqued more than one feminist article!]

Logic, however, is not just one "tool" through which knowledge can be ascertained; it is the entire toolbox.[And there's the most stoopid thing he's said yet!] Arguing against logic is impossible [stoooopid], because arguments themselves must necessarily be (or attempt to be) logical. [Says Snark, the "logician".] If you make a series of points against the use of logic, for instance, then you have failed, because in making your points you have made use of logic. [His ignorance of what constitutes knowledge and how knowledge is gathered and demonstrated, is extraordinary. He SOOOO needs to read and comprehend Yurugu. But he won't. He doesn't read feminist books. He just critiques all feminists' logic.]

It is simply not possible to argue that logic is subjective. [Um, yes, it is. His stoopid idea of logic is an idea rooted in a very particular cultural mindset and worldview. Ani points this out brilliantly. So surprise! Snark is wrong again!]

And I believe that feminists like Mary Daly knew this. [Again with what he believes as demonstrative of his perfectly objective logic. What a dork.]

They knew that they could not win through logical argument, and so they advocated that they should engage in illogical appeals, inconsistent justifications, and all those other tactics which men like myself, who hold philosophy in high regard, find so very frustrating. [That is hilarious. He demonstrates no understanding even of white het male philosophy! And he assumes that's the only philosophy there is, because he's so fucking anglo- and euro-centric. But for Snark and other snarky men, there is only what white het men have named and called "valuable". There is nothing else of worth. There are no other tools; no other toolboxes. I wonder if he has read any books by MacKinnon--someone who often employs white het men's logic systems to show up snarky white het men's stoopidity?]

When you strip all the superficiality of arguments away, what we have is a naked power grab by people who know that their amibitons cannot be defended in any consistent or honest way. [That's THE definition of what white het men have done over the last five hundred years. Broken treaties? Laws that hold a sexist double standard? A constitution that forgets to afford civil rights to the majority of people?]

A feminist may argue against an MRA on the grounds of sexual justice; but all she really believes in is female victory. [Right. Because all around us all we see is "female victory". According to snarky men like Snark, "white het male victory" is oxymoronic.] She simply uses "justice," the "patriarchal" concept, against its own guardians [men? Guardians? Doesn't that imply the guardians have more power than the non-guardians?], in order to keep them on the defensive while she moves on to new argumentative grounds. The inconsistency is intentional, because it confounds those of us who argue logically, point by point. [He is delusional, or stoned out of his mind. There's no other plausible explanation.]

Feminist argument is an assault on logic, [even the logical ones?] which is conflated (dishonestly) with "patriarchal oppression". [White het male supremacist argumentation is an assault not only on logic, not only on knowledge, but on human beings called women. The argumentation is not always verbal. Sometimes white het male logic take the form of the penis forced into the body of the person he is trying to impress with his "logic tool". Sometimes white het male logic is the fist in the woman's face. Sometimes it is leaving pornography on the desk of the female co-worker, to degrade and intimidate her. Sometimes it is murdering women who speak out against men's power over women. Sometimes it is men sticking their dicks in children. White het men have many ways of expressing their ideas.]

That is why it is best to simply ignore them. [As Snark apparently cannot do.] Only argue with them if you have an audience, to whom you can uncover their trickery! [Doesn't he mean his own dickery?] Otherwise, do not get dragged down into this game. [And getting dragged down into a linguistic game is, according to the likes of Snark, as evil as rape and genocide.] Your opponents have no honour, and they will cheat to win. [Ha! That's precisely what white het men have done to conquer so much of the world which they delusionally think they "discovered". Because of course this land mass must be India. And of course people with dark skin are not people--logically.]

- Snark [one of the snarkiest antifeminists of them all]

Moving on. We have this, a ridiculously inane piece of writing by a fool (not the good kind) named Mike Adams. I have only put in a few comments below.

Intellectual Rapists
by Mike Adams

During his first year at Humboldt State University (HSU) - as a tenure-track professor in the Psychology Department - faculty and students tried to silence Mark Harwood on a number of occasions. He was hired primarily to teach Human Sexuality—a class he had taught in a variety of settings including a doctoral program in the UC-system, a psychology program in the second highest ranked City College in the nation, and at a private university.

Mark Harwood received excellent reviews from most students; however, with a class as personal as human sexuality, some found a way to be offended. His teaching evaluations were well above average and, in some instances, stellar. His first experience teaching human sexuality at HSU proved to be different. The students in the Master’s program simply couldn’t wrap their minds around the idea that males and females are different. They objected to his emphasis on techniques for treating sexual dysfunction [as defined by a few white het men, who take their own fucked up sexuality to be normative and natural]– although this was the primary purpose of the class.

Professor Harwood’s second semester was even more distressing and he almost left HSU to take a position elsewhere. During the spring semester, he taught the undergraduate course in human sexuality. The course was cross-listed with Women’s Studies. Before the semester began, a student from the Women’s Studies department asked if he would allow her to be the T/A for the course. He agreed.

About four weeks into the course, the T/A indicated that she would like Dr. Harwood to cover domestic violence. He replied that because domestic violence isn’t directly related to human sexuality, he had not included it on the syllabus; however, he said that if they covered all the material in the syllabus and had time at the end of class, he would be happy to address this issue. As it turned out, he had the time.

Dr. Harwood sees domestic violence as a complex problem. Overall, he sees it as a relationship problem with both partners contributing to the dysfunctional relationship [of course!] and one or both of them playing a role in the initiation and maintenance of the violence. [Read: the b*tch asked for it!] This is recognized by virtually all experts [um, no, it's not] in the field of family therapy [only those propagandistically trained in family systems theory]. But to the Women’s Studies students, domestic violence is always entirely the fault of the male. [Well not if it's battery in a lesbian relationship.]

During class one day, Dr. Harwood handed out two peer-reviewed articles. The major findings of the articles were:

1. Women are more likely than men to initiate domestic violence. [Bone-breaking domestic violence?]

2. Women are more likely than men to maintain domestic violence. [As a form of physical terrorism against women and children in the home?]

3. Women are more likely than men to report that they were victims of domestic violence. [I can't imagine why.]

4. Women suffer more serious physical injury than men when involved in domestic violence. [Duh.]

5. Women do not fear retaliation for physically abusing their male partner. [Huh?]

Before all the empirically supported findings had been presented, the class erupted with outbursts, primarily from the Women’s Studies students. One actually yelled that Dr. Harwood was a “privileged, rich, white male.” [Which, as it turns out, was true. Empirically true.]
The Women’s Studies students continued to disrupt class so it was generally unproductive [as if teaching CRAP is irrefutably productive]—they simply didn’t want to hear what the researchers had discovered. [Or this doofus's biased teachings.] What angered them the most was the applause Dr. Harwood received at the end of class by a large number of students who appreciated that he presented material most professors would shy away from. [Right. Institutionalised violence is generally not taught. It's silently enacted and enforced.]

A day or two after the class, Dr. Harwood received a call from the Chair of the Women’s Studies department, Kim Berry. She wanted to meet with him and the department Chair to discuss the complaints she received from some of her students.

Based on the complaints from some students, she decided that the way Harwood presented the research was improper. Berry did not bother to get feedback from the students who applauded after the lecture. Mark Harwood replied to Kim Berry saying that his time was limited. A meeting never took place. Instead, she called his department chair and insisted that he never be allowed to teach the class again. She threatened that she would not allow her Women’s Studies students to take the class if he taught it.

Dr. Harwood’s department capitulated to her demands. [And were those in that department men? Profeminist and conspiratorial men?]

I wish I could say that the story ends here. [Me too. It's stoopid.] But HSU is a relatively small institution and rumors can be spread quickly [like about how some "girls" are sl*ts and wh*res? THAT quickly?], especially among the radical feminist students who constitute a large percentage of the student body. [What percent, exactly. Do the fucking math, Mike.] It was soon evident that a concerted effort to have Harwood dismissed was underway. [Have you even heard of victimisation as grievous and egregious, as horrible and horrid as this? Why, it's worse than gang rape! It's worse than genocide! Get out the violins. The "White-Man-as-theVictim-of-Feminist-Women" song is about to be sung and needs some accompaniment.]

Near the end of his time at HSU, before he received tenure, Dr. Harwood was asked to attend a thesis proposal meeting for a student who was doing research on domestic violence. He had been asked to be on her committee almost two years earlier and, upon accepting, gave her copies of the aforementioned articles and instructed her to make sure these seminal studies were included in her literature review. [Of course: white het male supremacist that he was.]

He was appalled to find that they were not mentioned anywhere in the literature review or thesis. [Horror! Close your eyes!!! A white man's ego has been bruised. Call 9-1-1!!!] Instead, junk research, “studies” from non-scientific organizations, and propaganda permeated the literature review.

Dr. Harwood was confident that the Chair for the thesis committee, Bettye Elmore, a full professor, would recognize the importance of including an unbiased [!!] treatment of the literature; however, he was wrong. The student and the professor became angry when he stated that these studies must be included in the literature review and the non-peer reviewed garbage that comprised the bulk of the review should be removed. [He got abusive, in other words.]

Elmore refused to read the research articles Harwood handed to her, and denied that they could be true. She went on to state that her ex-husband had depleted her savings and run off.

An hour later, the third committee member, a sociology professor arrived. The Chair then announced that Dr. Harwood had said women are more physically violent than men in domestic relationships. Harwood was surprised when he said, “Of course they are—we have known this for years”. [They don't break bones, do they?]

In Seattle, domestic violence calls were so frequent that a policy was instituted that stated when an officer arrives on the scene of a domestic violence call, someone must be arrested. It turned out, that in the very first year that the policy was in place, women were arrested for domestic violence 51% of the time. Upon hearing this, Elmore was visibly embarrassed and the student was angry. Harwood was later asked to relinquish his position as part of the thesis committee.

Once, when teaching a graduate class, Dr. Harwood used the symbol for male and female to designate the two groups and provide information under the categories. A female student became angered at the male symbol and erased the “arrow” that had an upward trajectory. She replaced it with an arrow that pointed down. Dr. Harwood asked if she was intimidated by male genitalia. He also asked if the Penis Monologues would offend her. Finally, he asked whether it would matter to her if all the males in the class began chanting “penis.” She filed a complaint with her department Chair. [Um, he was being a big dick.]

Mark Harwood eventually left HSU because he realized he was in a dysfunctional intellectual relationship. [He was abusive and a sexual harasser.] And he knows feminists don’t fear retaliation for abusing their intellectual superiors. [No. Men just beat, rape, and kill women for leaving them. Or for not leaving them. For planning to leave them. Or for just stating that they might do so.] He now teaches at Wheaton College. [source: here] [I'm awaiting the news of him being abusive and harassing there. Any time now.]

Mission:
To educate and provide services to women and girls who have been victims of commerical sexual exploitation (prostitution/sex-trafficking) and need assistance escaping the violence in their lives.

Philosophy Statement: We understand prostitution/sex- trafficking as a vicious cycle of violence, abuse, incarceration, and addiction. We understand that repeated experiences of violence undermines women and girls capacities to avoid further victimization. Sexual exploitation distorts the lives of women and girls, destroys families, and communities. Organizational Goals:

•To expose sex-trafficking/prostitution as violence against women
•To educate the community about the effects of commercial sexual exploitation on women and girls
•To provide supportive services to sex-trafficked/prostituted women and girls to help them escape violence and exploitation
•To operate within a culturally appropriate, age and gender-specific context
•To provide transitional and/or permanent housing and rental assistance to our target population

The following post was made to indicate, rather effectively, how misogyny factors into the reporting of gang rape by men of women, or of one woman. What follows is from *here*, at the radical feminist lesbian of color blog Gorgon Poisons, which I've happily added to my blogroll on the lower right. Thank you, Allecto!!! This quote is at the end of her post, but I'll put it first and leave it in place at the end.

*DISCLAIMER: I do not believe a single word of what I wrote [below]. I was just so angry with the way that this issue was reported in contrast to the way that the gang rape of women by footballers was reported. In my opinion, they are exactly the same; in fact the women raped by footballers suffered far more than the fire fighters did in this recent sexual abuse case. Why is it that women getting gang-raped by footballers is reported as a ‘sex scandal’ but when something similar happens to a man it is ‘horrific abuse’? Yes, what these firefighters suffered was horrific abuse. It is inexcusable. It is a crime. It should never, ever happen to anyone, ever. SAME WITH THE GANG RAPE OF WOMEN BY FOOTBALLERS!!!!! And yet the above was exactly the way that the media handled the gang rape of Clare… and so many other women who have been deeply scarred by their horrific experiences at the hands of rapist football players.*

A culture of homosexual group sex has been exposed with recent allegations of ‘sexual abuse’ by some retired fire fighters against their colleagues. These allegations have given rise to a debate on the nature of consent within group sex between men. Some sources have jumped to immediate conclusions on the matter, blaring headlines such as “Brutal Abuse Exposed” (Cover of The Sunday Telegraph, Sunday 14th February). However the issue is far more complicated than that.

We need to take into consideration several important points before we make such spurious judgment on the nature of this so called ‘abuse’.

One, it is a well known fact that groups of men in dangerous occupations tend to have sex with each other. The men making claims of abuse, knowingly and willing entered into a hazardous occupation which was, and still is, male dominated. What did they think was going to happen? Cup cakes and Kumbayah? No, these men knew full well the nature of other men and they willingly entered into an environment where they knew there was a risk of sex. Haven’t they seen the sexy calenders that firefighters produce for gay men?

Two, after the so-called ‘abuse’ all three men chose to stay within their career as firefighters. None of them reported the ‘abuse’ to the police until many years later. Obviously these men were ambivalent about whether or not this actually was abuse. Surely, if the group sex had been unwelcome, they would have left their positions and reported the crime to authorities.

Three, none of the men indicated that the group sex was unwelcome until years later. They report passively accepting the ‘abuse’, none of them claim to have asked the accused to stop, nor did they indicate that they had struggled in any way. It is difficult to believe that the advances of the accused were unwelcome when no indication was made on the part of the ‘victim’ to resist.

It is obvious that these men invited group sex when they joined the fire brigade. They did not leave their employment when the group sex started. And there is no indication that they did not consent to the so-called abuse. The case against the accused is very thin. It is difficult to understand how headlines like: “Brutal Abuse Exposed” could possibly by justified.

What this incident does indicate is that internalised homophobia and a desire for monetary compensation has driven some men to deny their natural inclinations for, and enjoyment of, all-male group sex. We need to change the culture of male-dominated, dangerous occupations so that men can indulge in group orgies with other men and not feel ashamed by their natural desires. This recent scandal has exposed the shocking truth of our society’s intolerance of the natural male sex drive. We need to accept and support men who need a good group fuck before fighting fires, crime, war etc. Headlines like the one published in The Sunday Telegraph are inflammatory and ignore the realities of what men need. If you want to support our firies in their life-saving efforts, embrace the fact of all-male group sex. It is a necessary, natural, team-bonding experience that makes men, men, and gives them the impetus to keep risking their lives, day after day.

*DISCLAIMER: I do not believe a single word of what I wrote above. I was just so angry with the way that this issue was reported in contrast to the way that the gang rape of women by footballers was reported. In my opinion, they are exactly the same; in fact the women raped by footballers suffered far more than the fire fighters did in this recent sexual abuse case. Why is it that women getting gang-raped by footballers is reported as a ‘sex scandal’ but when something similar happens to a man it is ‘horrific abuse’? Yes, what these firefighters suffered was horrific abuse. It is inexcusable. It is a crime. It should never, ever happen to anyone, ever. SAME WITH THE GANG RAPE OF WOMEN BY FOOTBALLERS!!!!! And yet the above was exactly the way that the media handled the gang rape of Clare… and so many other women who have been deeply scarred by their horrific experiences at the hands of rapist football players.*